If that's true how come at least 4 nuclear power plants have been approved by the Obama administration?
If you'll check your history books, the loan guarantees that made those possible were forged before Obama. And, more directly to your point, Obama and Ried appoint Jaczko to chair the NRC. There, he specifically tried to stop the licensing of those plants, but his arguments were proven to have no basis.
Jaczo was incompetent, and eventually it was so bad that he was run out. Appointing such an incompetent person to a post as important as the NRC chair is won of the most reckless things Obama has done, IMHO. While politics drives the chair choice in many agencies, the NRC had always had a person with appropriate expertise and insight at the helm in the past, regardless of who was president. We got Harry Reid's political ponyboy.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
Read the post I was responding to, then read mine. Then is should make sense to you. If not, I'm not sure I can help you.
As far as waste, yes, nuclear spent fuel waste is certainly a downside, but it can easily be managed or even re-used. There is no other clear air technology that can reliably generate the build of power we'll need to make a difference. Wind and PV have proven to be supplemental, and have their geographical limits. The choice is to have nuclear waste to manage or recycle, or to not significantly reduce CO2 contribution on a global scale. So yes, I was specific about air pollution because that is really what matters to fight AGW.
And maybe replacing parts of Facebook will also be easier than some see at present. Who knows how differently people may decide to interact when the phablet phase evolves to something else? Who knows what the next generation will prefer? Everything done in the past looks easier once you see it done.
While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
Unfortunately, Obama has already silently been trying to shut the door on nuclear, or at least letting H Ried pull the strings. Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.
The job simply can't get done without fission reactors in the mix unless you depend on hope of some tremendous breakthrough, which is not strategy at all. Unfortunately, too many are married to the idea that the only solution is solar and windmills, and those folks will also prevent us from making the real gains in carbon free emission that we need to make a difference. We need a lot of solar, a lot of wind, and a lot of nuclear. Gas can help fill the gaps. Any other path is one to failure.
Yes, others caught up to and surpassed IBM....The market was growing, but IBM had great advantages on many fronts.... there was a time many might have thought they could never be displaced.
Anyhow, I agree its apples and oranges to some extent. You believe Facebook can't be displaced at all, I don't think it is quite so impossible. Eat away at the edges and then grab bigger chunks over time.
Those assessments are easy to make in hindsight. IBM had a customer base and global infrastructure matched by no one. Not easy to 'clone' by any stretch. Yes, Facebook is quite entrenched, but with a better product and time, it is possible to take some market share. Linkedin ripped the business market from under Facebooks' nose. They weren't scared.
The first not-right thing that they did was to not realize that Facebook is a market force like IBM was in 1981,
Does that mean they should not have tried to compete? There were lots of failed attempts to compete with IBM, but now look at the others who have moved in to that space.
Ambition is one thing, but ignoring reality is something completely different.
True, but compared to some Google initiatives, the market potential for this was much greater if they got it right, thus the willingness to invest more even in the face of a tougher reality. They risked more for the greater reward. That's how it goes sometimes. Of course, it makes it harder to accept defeat as well, that is also par for the course.
Good points. There is no reason to tie solar PV to car charging to start with. Cars are driven mostly during the day, it makes most sense to charge at night when the rest of society doesn't need the power for other things.
Dedicated solar car chargers at work sound nice, since you'd be parked during the day, but they would sit unused on weekends and holidays. Similar for home based systems. It simply makes no sense to associate the two from a practical standpoint.
The choice to use solar and the choice to install an EV charger should be independent of each other.
And I agree it makes no sense to manufacture tons of extra batteries just to swap. That is a workaround to a fundamental issue with EVs, the best thing for EVs is to get range up to where it is only a problem for a small slice of the market. The people who want battery swaps the most will be battery makers. A lot of energy would be wasted on manufacturing, maintaining, and transporting those extra batteries, and other issues arise such as increase waste, increase rare earth metal demand, etc.
Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability.
I never said that, you change the words to suit your attempts at making a point. I actually said you need to know the levels AND the probabilities, the max levels are sufficient, we know that from the testing. How hard is this to understand.
Yo might want to worry about what you eat elsewhere. Acceptance limits in the EU and US are more than 10 times higher than in Japan, and in turn there is no known or observed health risks at 100 times those levels. The information is out there.
It is too early to make the call, but it is not too early to talk about the potential challenges of rolling out such a solution. Those must be kept in mind as we move forward, ignoring them could lead to waste.
I don't know the cost, but I, unlike you, can see the challenges in getting 100% of the cows in the world eating diets that 100% have 3NOP. You need to manufacture enough for starters, then distribute to every farm on the planet. And you need cooperation from all parties involved, including government, farmers, etc.
You'll have to fend off legal action from those that oppose it, including the 'organic' food crowd.
Then you have to deal with the little problem that a huge number of cows are range fed, not grain fed (oops, did you think of that?).
If the conclusion of the study were that cows shitted gold bricks after eating this, then yes it might get adopted faster. I don't think weight management is a game changer, why would it be? Is that something that is a big problem? Why do you think the study will come to that conclusion?
The smart approach makes sense from a an implementation standpoint, and yields significant results for reasonable investment, and while the data on this one is yet to be seen, a little common sense in bit of critical thinking help us to understand the challenges that such a solution will face. The challenges you simply blow off in your mind as irrelevant.
And BTW, domestic cows only make up a part of the total 'cud chewing bovine' population that contribute 'up to' 4% of the methane, so the upside is smaller than you thought.
Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference.
That appears to be the theoretical maximum. But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense. The answer to reducing global warming gasses is not 'do everything', particularly in the near term, because we can't afford to 'do everything'. The smart approach is do what makes sense
The method of debunking the claim was quite stupid. In fact they were not, in the end, able to completely refute it because they too the wrong approach and played the game of the vendor.
Not sure what your point is. I don't think the amount or percent of cost bearing was discussed by me or the OP, just a method to help pay. BTW, a very large portion of road costs are for new construction, expansion, safety improvements, traffic lights to help flow, etc. So, just factor that in when you make your valid, but maybe not completely thought out point. Trucks pay other fees besides gas tax, and are a very important element in our economy.
The emergency generators were not in the basement. They would operate just fine under the design basis flood, which is the flood level the plant was designed for. Unfortunately, they put it where it could get flooded above that level, and worse because a tsunami not only floods, but tears up whatever is in its path.
Now there will be no excuse not to require cyclists to get a license, registration, and payment of that registration yearly to pay for the roads they want. As a highly-taxed driver (gas and registration), I'm getting rather tired of cyclists requesting more and more road upgrades despite them not paying even a small share of the costs for those upgrades.
Obviously bicycles do far less damage to the roads, and the requirements are much lower. So we can forgo trying to replace the gas taxes, and just stick to registration costs.
Oh, you don't like that? Quit being a leech, TYVM.
Interesting points. I'd say allow electric bikes as well (within reasonable specs).
It is stupid tests like this by people who don't really understand the fundamentals of digital data transmission and processing that gives those audiophiles that don't know better excuses to keep the faith.
They did it because that's how the company that makes the cables describes their test environment. They claim "clear unmistakeable" improvements in the audio quality in the setup Ars used, but only if you plug the cable in in the correct direction (denoted by an arrow on the connectors).
In fact the company claims that they determine which way to face the arrow by plugging the cable in and listening in both directions and choosing the best.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's true how come at least 4 nuclear power plants have been approved by the Obama administration?
If you'll check your history books, the loan guarantees that made those possible were forged before Obama. And, more directly to your point, Obama and Ried appoint Jaczko to chair the NRC. There, he specifically tried to stop the licensing of those plants, but his arguments were proven to have no basis.
Jaczo was incompetent, and eventually it was so bad that he was run out. Appointing such an incompetent person to a post as important as the NRC chair is won of the most reckless things Obama has done, IMHO. While politics drives the chair choice in many agencies, the NRC had always had a person with appropriate expertise and insight at the helm in the past, regardless of who was president. We got Harry Reid's political ponyboy.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
Read the post I was responding to, then read mine. Then is should make sense to you. If not, I'm not sure I can help you.
As far as waste, yes, nuclear spent fuel waste is certainly a downside, but it can easily be managed or even re-used. There is no other clear air technology that can reliably generate the build of power we'll need to make a difference. Wind and PV have proven to be supplemental, and have their geographical limits. The choice is to have nuclear waste to manage or recycle, or to not significantly reduce CO2 contribution on a global scale. So yes, I was specific about air pollution because that is really what matters to fight AGW.
And maybe replacing parts of Facebook will also be easier than some see at present. Who knows how differently people may decide to interact when the phablet phase evolves to something else? Who knows what the next generation will prefer? Everything done in the past looks easier once you see it done.
While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
Unfortunately, Obama has already silently been trying to shut the door on nuclear, or at least letting H Ried pull the strings. Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.
The job simply can't get done without fission reactors in the mix unless you depend on hope of some tremendous breakthrough, which is not strategy at all. Unfortunately, too many are married to the idea that the only solution is solar and windmills, and those folks will also prevent us from making the real gains in carbon free emission that we need to make a difference. We need a lot of solar, a lot of wind, and a lot of nuclear. Gas can help fill the gaps. Any other path is one to failure.
Yes, others caught up to and surpassed IBM....The market was growing, but IBM had great advantages on many fronts.... there was a time many might have thought they could never be displaced.
Anyhow, I agree its apples and oranges to some extent. You believe Facebook can't be displaced at all, I don't think it is quite so impossible. Eat away at the edges and then grab bigger chunks over time.
IBM completely dominated the small PC market for quite some time. It was far from tiny. I know, I worked in a distribution center in college.
How the hell much is this going to cost?
Likely a crapload more than the so called "expert" who is really from from a solar/wind industry media outlet tells us it will.
Those assessments are easy to make in hindsight. IBM had a customer base and global infrastructure matched by no one. Not easy to 'clone' by any stretch. Yes, Facebook is quite entrenched, but with a better product and time, it is possible to take some market share. Linkedin ripped the business market from under Facebooks' nose. They weren't scared.
if they got it right
The first not-right thing that they did was to not realize that Facebook is a market force like IBM was in 1981,
Does that mean they should not have tried to compete? There were lots of failed attempts to compete with IBM, but now look at the others who have moved in to that space.
Ambition is one thing, but ignoring reality is something completely different.
True, but compared to some Google initiatives, the market potential for this was much greater if they got it right, thus the willingness to invest more even in the face of a tougher reality. They risked more for the greater reward. That's how it goes sometimes. Of course, it makes it harder to accept defeat as well, that is also par for the course.
Good points. There is no reason to tie solar PV to car charging to start with. Cars are driven mostly during the day, it makes most sense to charge at night when the rest of society doesn't need the power for other things.
Dedicated solar car chargers at work sound nice, since you'd be parked during the day, but they would sit unused on weekends and holidays. Similar for home based systems. It simply makes no sense to associate the two from a practical standpoint.
The choice to use solar and the choice to install an EV charger should be independent of each other.
And I agree it makes no sense to manufacture tons of extra batteries just to swap. That is a workaround to a fundamental issue with EVs, the best thing for EVs is to get range up to where it is only a problem for a small slice of the market. The people who want battery swaps the most will be battery makers. A lot of energy would be wasted on manufacturing, maintaining, and transporting those extra batteries, and other issues arise such as increase waste, increase rare earth metal demand, etc.
Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability.
I never said that, you change the words to suit your attempts at making a point. I actually said you need to know the levels AND the probabilities, the max levels are sufficient, we know that from the testing. How hard is this to understand.
Yo might want to worry about what you eat elsewhere. Acceptance limits in the EU and US are more than 10 times higher than in Japan, and in turn there is no known or observed health risks at 100 times those levels. The information is out there.
It is too early to make the call, but it is not too early to talk about the potential challenges of rolling out such a solution. Those must be kept in mind as we move forward, ignoring them could lead to waste.
I don't know the cost, but I, unlike you, can see the challenges in getting 100% of the cows in the world eating diets that 100% have 3NOP. You need to manufacture enough for starters, then distribute to every farm on the planet. And you need cooperation from all parties involved, including government, farmers, etc.
You'll have to fend off legal action from those that oppose it, including the 'organic' food crowd.
Then you have to deal with the little problem that a huge number of cows are range fed, not grain fed (oops, did you think of that?).
If the conclusion of the study were that cows shitted gold bricks after eating this, then yes it might get adopted faster. I don't think weight management is a game changer, why would it be? Is that something that is a big problem? Why do you think the study will come to that conclusion?
The smart approach makes sense from a an implementation standpoint, and yields significant results for reasonable investment, and while the data on this one is yet to be seen, a little common sense in bit of critical thinking help us to understand the challenges that such a solution will face. The challenges you simply blow off in your mind as irrelevant.
And BTW, domestic cows only make up a part of the total 'cud chewing bovine' population that contribute 'up to' 4% of the methane, so the upside is smaller than you thought.
It is an advance in making very niche, super lightweight airframes. That is about it.
Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference.
That appears to be the theoretical maximum. But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense. The answer to reducing global warming gasses is not 'do everything', particularly in the near term, because we can't afford to 'do everything'. The smart approach is do what makes sense
Elon Musk says shhhhhh.
The method of debunking the claim was quite stupid. In fact they were not, in the end, able to completely refute it because they too the wrong approach and played the game of the vendor.
Not sure what your point is. I don't think the amount or percent of cost bearing was discussed by me or the OP, just a method to help pay. BTW, a very large portion of road costs are for new construction, expansion, safety improvements, traffic lights to help flow, etc. So, just factor that in when you make your valid, but maybe not completely thought out point. Trucks pay other fees besides gas tax, and are a very important element in our economy.
The emergency generators were not in the basement. They would operate just fine under the design basis flood, which is the flood level the plant was designed for. Unfortunately, they put it where it could get flooded above that level, and worse because a tsunami not only floods, but tears up whatever is in its path.
Now there will be no excuse not to require cyclists to get a license, registration, and payment of that registration yearly to pay for the roads they want. As a highly-taxed driver (gas and registration), I'm getting rather tired of cyclists requesting more and more road upgrades despite them not paying even a small share of the costs for those upgrades.
Obviously bicycles do far less damage to the roads, and the requirements are much lower. So we can forgo trying to replace the gas taxes, and just stick to registration costs.
Oh, you don't like that? Quit being a leech, TYVM.
Interesting points. I'd say allow electric bikes as well (within reasonable specs).
It is stupid tests like this by people who don't really understand the fundamentals of digital data transmission and processing that gives those audiophiles that don't know better excuses to keep the faith.
They did it because that's how the company that makes the cables describes their test environment. They claim "clear unmistakeable" improvements in the audio quality in the setup Ars used, but only if you plug the cable in in the correct direction (denoted by an arrow on the connectors). In fact the company claims that they determine which way to face the arrow by plugging the cable in and listening in both directions and choosing the best.
The direction of the cable? Are you shitting me?
And testing the digital portion is very easy.
Yep, you just need a superwhamadyne gozinta gozouta comparator.